| Written by Dana Olson Published at 2009-11-21 11:37:48 Tagged: [Weekend Poll] |
Much ado was made elsewhere on the internet about Sony's plans to actually make money from PlayStation Network users by introducing subscription-based services. Many immediately jumped the gun, saying Sony was going back on their word, and that online gaming on the PS3 and PSP would no longer be free.
However, Sony later clarified and said that the current PSN service, including gaming, would remain free, and that they are looking at adding new services as revenue streams. That should have calmed people down, really, but apparently some are still comparing this to Microsoft's tiered user system, when in reality, it's likely not even close to the same thing.
If everyone with a PS3 can game online and get demos and buy games at no additional cost to what they can do now, then Sony is well within their promise of "forever free" to add NEW options that can be monetized. We've actually already seen this with Qore and certain items in Home. But what else could be down the road? Well, let your mind wander...
A subscription-based movie rental service? Maybe subscribing to Netflix directly from your PS3? Streaming XM and/or SIRIUS satellite radio subscriptions? Some sort of Game of the Month club? Streaming TV service? What about a music store with an all-you-can-eat monthly fee, maybe even iTunes? Or how about subscribing to a service like Skype for making real local and long-distance phone calls from your PS3?
There are a lot of possibilities, and I am kinda excited to see what they are, but I gotta ask...
| Are you interested in new subscription-based PSN services? | ||
| Absolutely. I would even pay to play online, like on the 360! | ||
| Yeah, so long as the current PSN stays in tact. | ||
| Maybe, but I really don't like the idea. | ||
| No, I think it's a terrible idea. | ||
| No, I really only wanna game on my PS3. | ||
| Log in to vote and see poll results. | ||
11 comments:
 |  BamBamBoozled
|
2 
19 
88 
354 New services mean more appeal to hook more in and make the world go around. Im all for it just don't fix what isn't broken.
@Jason LaFave: I think online should be free for a lot of reasons starting with they've already proven it could be done and priced in. And I don't want to be charged full price for half of a game. Subscription cost of even half a game a month means I'd buy half the games I do which would bring me to about zero.
I don't think everything should be free though. Like those facebook games. I trade for music now when possible. If I download something anymore its usually out of print or unreleased entirely, or just as a preview. I share and have torrented stuff in the past but usually along the same lines. This is just for perspective. Im sure there are people like that out there but these are my reasons personally.
 | Dana Olson
|
I don't think everything should be free. I do think online play needs to be free. In the case of the PSN, Sony made a promise, and if they break that, then I won't trust them again. Why would I pay for a service which I would rarely use? If I play online it isn't much, but if I had to pay to do it, I just would never play online. I do voice and video chat on the PSN more than I game online, and I wouldn't pay to do that, either. There are ways to subsidize online costs, and I think that's what they are trying to do. I wouldn't subscribe to play online, but I would subscribe to other services to help fund the free PSN. Why? What is the difference? Well, not everyone can afford or would use it enough to justify a monthly fee to game online, and I feel that those people shouldn't miss out because of that. I pay for my game once, so if the price doesn't cover production costs, either raise that price or ONLY charge a recurring fee. You can't have both. It's why I haven't got into any MMO like WoW, too.
| Dana Olson
|
Also, developers should be reusing their engines more, to release downloadable games like Quest for Booty, Battlefield 1943, and the EA Sports mini-games. The lack of retail costs means more potential profits.
Nobody, I repeat, nobody (not even Bobby Kotick) forced Sony to drop PS3 price. They made that call, and if it was because of pressure, then they should have stuck with their guns. You can't justify paying to use something you already bought just to recoup costs due to poor markup. Nintendo understands this and that is why their lowliest of employees wipe their asses with fifties.
It is in Sony's best interest to keep PSN online play free, because it is a leg up on the 360, and they did make that promise.
 | Jason LaFave
|
@Dana Olson: I absolutely agree with every word. What's more, your guesses as to what ideas Sony is noodling around with are probably pretty accurate, and they would be great additions.
For Sony to have stated again, their intention to keep the PSN free, answers my concerns and should have for everyone else. Those people who insist on crying havoc (
), even after Sony has clarified, are most likely the same ones I have in mind, who seem to respond to every post on PlayStation.Blog (for example), complaining that something needs to be free or fixed or added. Blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. That stuff almost always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I always fall back to wondering how appropriate it is for people to be so vocal and annoying. | Dana Olson
|
@Jason LaFave: PS3 needs more avatars NAOOOWWWW!
| Jason LaFave
|
@Dana Olson: Well...okay, I'm actually with you on that one. I just want a silver, metal ball icon, so I can change my comment to "Pinball Heroes Addict".
 | Colin McFedran
|
Sounds familiar.
http://www.tawkn.com/index.php?news_id=1922
(Hi all)
| Dana Olson
|
*faints*
 | Brian Kamm
|
@Colin McFedran: Welcome back ... or are you just visiting
 | Apotheosis
|
@Colin McFedran: We knew you'd come crawling back to that succulent, silky smooth chocolate lovin' you know only TAWKN could offer. It's awwright, baby.
I'm always willing to pay for something, if it's worth it. I do like and appreciate Sony's free services with the PSN, and I hope that they don't go back on their word or message of "free". I do, however, see that introducing successful revenue streams will result in better quality and more features in the services they provide us. I only hope that the focus is in additional offerings, and not in altering their core service.
In all honesty, it took me a while to understand how gamers (and various other online "voices") felt justified in demanding (almost) everything be free. I do realize the legitimacy in thinking that, since many of us paid a premium price on the hardware, and the software certainly ain't cheap, the services as a package should be free. They should be the additional benefit for loyal customers/users.
Doesn't the problem with that lie in the fact that Sony takes a loss in hardware sales, and that software is never guaranteed to make back production costs? Didn't I just read somewhere, that Sony is pushing their profitability mark back to 2013? This is a direct result of them scrambling to meet the users' insistence that things should be free, and (even more so) that what we do pay for, we think should be cheaper.
This may be misguided, but I often wonder if this mentality of "free" or "cheaper" isn't a bleed-over from people getting things for free online for so long, either legally or (more specifically) illegally. I'm honestly not wagging any fingers or casting any judgments. It's just taken work for me to figure this out, because I am (to a degree) an outsider on some of this. I've somehow never used a bit-torrent, and downloaded about 15 songs on Kazaa, nearly 10 years ago. That's about it. I'm not making any self-righteous statements here, that's just...my story, I guess. Whatever. I'm rambling now.
I think we should be open to Sony trying new things, because in the end, I think we should want to see our chosen platform be successful.
You may now proceed to tear into me, if you feel the need.